BAHUUDDESHAIYA NAGLA IMARTI KISAN SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,NAGLA IMARTI, ROORKEE vs. ADDITIONAL JOINTDEPUTYASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSING OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 118/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits. The CIT(Appeals) is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the petition for condonation of delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(NFAC) for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17. The appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed for non-prosecution, and for AY 2016-17, it was dismissed due to delay without adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution and delay without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri Amarpal Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.05.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

1.

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT-NFAC, Delhi vide orders dated 22.11.2023 and 10.11.2023 for the assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. In denying the deduction u/s 80P of the Act in spite of issue of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee.

2.

On perusal of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order, we observed that the appeal for the AY 2015-16 was dismissed for non prosecution by the assessee and without going into the merits of the issue.

Similarly for the AY 2016-17 the appeal of the assessee was dismissed summarily on the ground that the appeal is delayed by 177 days based on the AO’s verification that the assessment order was e-mail to advocatetax45@gmail.com. Even as per the AO’s verification the assessment order is not served on the assessee but was sent to the mail address of the consultant. In any case the Ld. CIT(A) should have provided the opportunities to the assessee to explain the delay, it appears that the order was passed ex parte without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Thus, in the interest of justice, we restore these two appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) who shall decide the issues on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee may explain the delay if any in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) by filing the petition for condonation of delay.

With these observations these two appeals are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding afresh.

3.

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07/05/2025

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →